Thomas F. Mitchell, Jr. v. Harold W. Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999615241-2], denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999613948-2] Originating case number: 7:14-cv-00086-JLK-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999710258]. Mailed to: Mitchell. [15-6843]

Appeal: 15-6843

Doc: 11

Filed: 12/02/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6843

THOMAS F. MITCHELL, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, VDOC Director,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (7:14-cv-00086-JLK-RSB)

Submitted:

November 30, 2015

Decided:

December 2, 2015

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas F. Mitchell, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
James Milburn
Isaacs, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6843

Doc: 11

Filed: 12/02/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Thomas F. Mitchell, Jr., a state prisoner, seeks to appeal
the

district

court’s

order

denying

relief

on

his

28

U.S.C.

§ 2241 (2012) petition, which the court also construed as a 28
U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.

Mitchell also seeks to appeal

the district court’s order denying his postjudgment motion.
orders

are

issues

not

a

appealable

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

unless
of

circuit

justice

appealability.

or

28

judge
U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

a

The

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

of

a

When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this

standard

by

demonstrating

that

reasonable

jurists

would

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong.

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

When the district court denies relief on procedural

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive
procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a
debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

Slack,

529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Mitchell has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
2

Appeal: 15-6843

Doc: 11

Filed: 12/02/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3